Let's get educated about the American welfare programs

[southernhybrid]

https://www.thebalance.com/welfare-programs-definition-and-list-3305759

I don't know if it's ignorance or just trolling, but I've read a lot of misinformation about our government programs which offer help to the poor and the disabled, without any evidence to back up the claims. So, can we at least learn more about the programs that some love and some hate, and most have very little knowledge about?

There are six major U.S. welfare programs. They are Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs, Supplemental Security Income, Earned Income Tax Credit, and Housing Assistance.


The federal government provides the funding for these programs. The states administer the programs. Some provide additional funds.

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program is often called welfare. TANF provided income to 1.2 million families in October 2018. It benefited 822,192 adults and 2.3 million children.2

In 2016, TANF assisted only 23% of the families living in poverty, according to the Center on Budget Priorities.3 On average, a three-person family received $447 a month. Despite this help, they still lived below the poverty line.

TANF benefits are usually limited to five years over a person's lifetime. It was created under the Clinton administration and fraud has been drastically reduced since TANF was started. Plus, let's be honest, no family of three can survive on 447 a month, even if they are receiving help from other programs.

Medicaid paid for health care for 65 million low-income adults in 2019.8 The largest share, which was 50%, went to 29.5 million children. Next, it covered 19.2 million adults, mostly parents of these children. It pays for 40% of all U.S. births.9

Medicaid also paid health expenses for 4.8 million blind and disabled people. The smallest category was 7.2 million low-income seniors.10
 It paid for any health costs that Medicare didn't cover for eligible recipients.

The Affordable Care Act increased Medicaid coverage by 26%.11 It raised the income level and allowed single adults to qualify.

I have cared for many recipients of Medicaid. They were mostly poor older adults who had no savings or who had used up their savings. Medicaid was expanded under the ACA, but due to a SCOTUS ruling, not every stage took the expansion, leaving many poor people without access to affordable health care.

CHIP, is the program that provides health care to the children of low income families. I have friends who receive CHIP for their children. They all work, but don't make enough money to afford insurance for their children. So, this is just another health care program in a nation that has a mixed up health care system that doesn't provide care for all of its citizens.

SNAP is more commonly called food stamps. It gave food vouchers to more than 39.7 million people in 2018.13 (Rhode Island and North Carolina did not report usage data.) The average individual received $127 a month. The total federal cost for SNAP was $68 billion. Of that, 92% was spent on food and the rest on administrative costs. It requires recipients without children to work after three months. It waives the requirement for those who live in areas with high unemployment.

You really can't buy much food for 127 a month and in my state one receives a card that is used to purchase foods while receiving SNAP. The card if refilled each month. I know people who receive SNAP benefits. Many of them are older adults who are living on very small SS pensions. My only criticism of SNAP is that it can be used to purchase all kinds of junk food and soft drinks. If I had the power to change SNAP, only food that has some nutritional value would be permitted.

here's an additional food stamp program for nursing mothers and young children. The Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children provides food or vouchers, education, and referrals to help feed pregnant women and children up to age six.

I worked as a public health nurse around the time that WIC began. In order to qualify, a woman has to meet not only a financial criteria but a need based on her or her children's health. Anemia, being under weight or over weight, low birth weight, certain diseases etc. allow a low income family to qualify for WIC. WIC vouchers can only be used to purchase what are considered healthy foods. In the past few years, fresh fruits and vegetables have been added to what can be purchased with WIC vouchers. This program's primary purpose is to help the recipients eat healthier foods.

The Earned Income Tax Credit is a tax credit for families with at least one child. For tax year 2018, a family of four, in which couples are married and filing jointly, must earn less than $55,884 a year to qualify.18 In tax year 2018, over 22 million received credits for an average of $3,191 for a family with children. EITC lifted approximately 5.6 million people out of poverty, 3 million of whom were children.19

The EIC is a very popular program and it's only given to people who work. I think I once qualified for this when I was a single mother working as a public health nurse. That was in 1980 and my EIC was only a few hundred dollars for the year. Obviously, this program isn't just for the poorest. If home owners get to deduct their real estate taxes and mortgage interest on their tax returns, I think helping those who may not be able to afford to buy a home is a great idea. Since it's given just once, it often helps people pay down debt, buy clothing for their children, or replace a dying appliance etc. I can't imagine why anyone would be against this program, especially when you consider all the tax breaks and right offs that more affluent people can benefit from.

Housing Assistance is provided by 1.2 million units of public housing.20 The Housing Choice Voucher Program gives rent certificates for approved units.21 The subsidy allows recipients to pay no more than 30% of their income. Local agencies administer it to 2.2 million renters.22
 This is the old Section 8 program. The Public Housing Agency allows​ some families to use the voucher to purchase a modest home.

Imo, this program needs to be expanded as there is currently long waiting lists for public housing in my city and probably in most cities. If housing costs were more affordable, there wouldn't be so many homeless people, and those who don't make very high incomes could afford to live in the more expensive cities. Plus, it's not like recipients are getting free housing, they are simply getting help paying the rent.

Finally, there is SSI, or Supplemental Security Income.

The Supplemental Security Program provides cash to help the aged, blind, and disabled to buy food, clothing, and shelter.16 As of Nov. 2019, more than 8 million people received an average of $567 per month. Of those, 6.9 million are blind or disabled.17


It's very difficult to live on 567 per month, but assuming these recipients are receiving other help, I assume most can at least get by. I've had patients that received SSI. They were all older adults who were disabled and were never able to work or to work long enough to meet the 10 year requirement mandated to receive SS once you reach 62 or older.

As you can see, the majority of these welfare programs go to the disabled, the elderly, children, and working families with fairly low or very low incomes.

So, if you want to rant about welfare, at least now you have the facts.

The United States has six major welfare programs: TANF, Medicaid, CHIP, SNAP, EITC, Supplemental Security Income, and housing assistance. To be eligible, recipients' income must be below the poverty levels set by the states. There are other limits as well. TANF recipients must get a job after two years. They won't receive additional benefits should they have another child while under this program.

Fraud is fairly rare in these programs despite what some people think. I don't have time right now, but I can find articles that describe the amount of fraud. A lot of what we consider fraud is due to errors made by the agencies themselves, such as typo errors etc.

So, for those who are living comfortable lives but are critical of these programs, please explain what you would do to help the poor, especially those who are children, elderly or disabled. Not everyone has the intellectual capacity to get a job that pays well. If the minimum wage was a living wage, it would alleviate a lot of the need for so much government help.

 

[Worldtraveller]

It isn't generally trolling or ignorance. It's mostly deliberate misinformation fed to the mouthbreathers by the right wing media.

The fact that so many of said mouth breathers lap it up is an indication of many things, but I think ignorance is only a small part.

The wealthy right wingers want to keep dividing poor people along racial/ethnic lines, because if all the poor people actually got together long enough to see what was going on, there might be trouble.

 

[southernhybrid]

It isn't generally trolling or ignorance. It's mostly deliberate misinformation fed to the mouthbreathers by the right wing media.

The fact that so many of said mouth breathers lap it up is an indication of many things, but I think ignorance is only a small part.

The wealthy right wingers want to keep dividing poor people along racial/ethnic lines, because if all the poor people actually got together long enough to see what was going on, there might be trouble.

Yes, but if a person only listens to right wing radio and tv, I think ignorance is an accurate way to describe them. They are ignorant because they have never learned the truth about our welfare programs.

I've known people who still think that the welfare programs that were around in the 60s through the mid 90s still exist. They don't even know what TANF is. They thing that one can simply get welfare payments indefinitely. They have no idea what one must do in order to qualify for any of these programs. I was just trying to educate them a bit. Yeah. I know that's probably very idealistic of me to think it's possible to educate people who cling to stupid concepts that they've believed for many years.

Take SS and Medicare for example, two entitlement programs that we all pay into with the expectation of receiving help if we become disabled or reach a certain age. Most lower middle class right wingers don't even realize that most Republicans in government would love to destroy or drastically cut these two programs. That's simply ignorant. I know people like that.

I have many black friends and acquaintances who are poor or lower middle class, but they aren't ignorant. They actually know the facts when it comes to which party supports the programs that the majority of us come to depend on in old age. Where I live, black and white older citizens get along very well, but most never discuss politics.

 

[SimpleDon]

Our honorable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court says that our democracy is at risk because of inadequate civics lessons in our schools. This is rich from a person who has done much more to damage our democracy than anyone else in the country. His rulings dismantled the Voting Rights Act of 1965, refused to recognize gerrymandering as a threat to one man one vote, allowed the very rich and corporations to have an outsized influence in the elections by ruling that money is free speech, and many other smaller bites out of our democracy. All in the service of the rich and the powerful.

The biggest threat to our capitalism and our democracy is neoliberalism.

 

[Half-Life]

Unless you are disabled or mentally ill, welfare should be abolished. Have too many kids because you were recklessly having sex? Too bad. This would teach people they can't be reckless and suck on the government teet. People would think twice instead of saying, "I can have all these kids and get more free money from the government!"

Every parent with a child knows how this works. Is your child more likely to get a job if you give them free money every week? Or less likely?

 

[Patooka]

Unless you are disabled or mentally ill, welfare should be abolished. Have too many kids because you were recklessly having sex? Too bad. This would teach people they can't be reckless and suck on the government teet. People would think twice instead of saying, "I can have all these kids and get more free money from the government!"

Every parent with a child knows how this works. Is your child more likely to get a job if you give them free money every week? Or less likely?

In your opinion, what's the difference between welfare and tax cuts for the wealthy?

 

[Half-Life]

Unless you are disabled or mentally ill, welfare should be abolished. Have too many kids because you were recklessly having sex? Too bad. This would teach people they can't be reckless and suck on the government teet. People would think twice instead of saying, "I can have all these kids and get more free money from the government!"

Every parent with a child knows how this works. Is your child more likely to get a job if you give them free money every week? Or less likely?

In your opinion, what's the difference between welfare and tax cuts for the wealthy?

Tax cuts keep the wealthy here instead of taking their company overseas to a different country with a lower tax rate. If they left the country, leftists would be the first ones complaining, "WHERE'S ALL THE JOBS??!?!!" It is the billionaires who create almost all of the jobs in the country for everyone else, and leftists have the nerve to spit on them.

They should be saying, "Thank you for creating all these jobs!"

 

[Rhea]

In your opinion, what's the difference between welfare and tax cuts for the wealthy?

Tax cuts keep the wealthy here instead of taking their company overseas to a different country with a lower tax rate. If they left the country, leftists would be the first ones complaining, "WHERE'S ALL THE JOBS??!?!!" It is the billionaires who create almost all of the jobs in the country for everyone else, and leftists have the nerve to spit on them.

They should be saying, "Thank you for creating all these jobs!"

If keeping them here requires giving them welfare, I say send em back to the countries they claim they’d rather live in.
As soon as they are gone the free market will fill the void.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Unless you are disabled or mentally ill, welfare should be abolished. Have too many kids because you were recklessly having sex? Too bad. This would teach people they can't be reckless and suck on the government teet. People would think twice instead of saying, "I can have all these kids and get more free money from the government!"

Every parent with a child knows how this works. Is your child more likely to get a job if you give them free money every week? Or less likely?

And the kids suffer and perhaps die for the sins of the parents?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Unless you are disabled or mentally ill, welfare should be abolished. Have too many kids because you were recklessly having sex? Too bad. This would teach people they can't be reckless and suck on the government teet. People would think twice instead of saying, "I can have all these kids and get more free money from the government!"

Every parent with a child knows how this works. Is your child more likely to get a job if you give them free money every week? Or less likely?

In your opinion, what's the difference between welfare and tax cuts for the wealthy?

Tax cuts keep the wealthy here instead of taking their company overseas to a different country with a lower tax rate. If they left the country, leftists would be the first ones complaining, "WHERE'S ALL THE JOBS??!?!!" It is the billionaires who create almost all of the jobs in the country for everyone else, and leftists have the nerve to spit on them.

They should be saying, "Thank you for creating all these jobs!"

The tax cuts didn't create jobs. Most of it went into the pockets of the owners.

 

[Half-Life]

Tax cuts keep the wealthy here instead of taking their company overseas to a different country with a lower tax rate. If they left the country, leftists would be the first ones complaining, "WHERE'S ALL THE JOBS??!?!!" It is the billionaires who create almost all of the jobs in the country for everyone else, and leftists have the nerve to spit on them.

They should be saying, "Thank you for creating all these jobs!"

The tax cuts didn't create jobs. Most of it went into the pockets of the owners.

I'm saying the billionaires create the most jobs for people. Everyone always complains that the top 1% owns 50% of the wealth, but they never stop and look at how many jobs the top 1% creates for everyone.

Without places like Home Depot, Walmart, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, most people wouldn't have any jobs.

Shouldn't the response be "thank you" instead of hatred and spitting on them?

 

[fromderinside]

First most of those who created most of the jobs were not billionaires when they created/filled the niche for demand. Their wealth came as the result of a lot of hard work by those who actually did the work creating whatever brought in money disproportionately to those who became billionaires.

I'm pretty sure that the guy who developed DOS was pleased that two operators bought his product and used it to get a contract with IBM for their PC built as a response to two other guys who actually developed a computer in a garage then stole XEROX's interface toolkit to gain an edge.

I've got a million of them. Kinive, fleece deceive, steal .... get rich.

So Up yours very much.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I've only ever taken advantage of three programs since I became an adult: Unemployment, Food Stamps, and WIC. I never qualified for anything else, and I only took advantage of those programs during my two brief stints of unemployment.

Okay, not so brief, one of them lasted six whole months.

I didn't want to. As a kid my family qualified for assistance. I didn't want to do it once I was on my own. I am not proud of it, but I did it because I have a family to support. It was pointed out to me that Unemployment was something I already paid for. Still with a family to support I wanted to make it through until I got the next job. Which I did.

I guess you could say I am a public assistance success story, but I knew my unemployment would be temporary anyway. I cut it pretty close the first time, getting a job at 5 months 3.5 weeks when I only get 6 months of unemployment.

You'll find I don't complain about support to the needy much. Every time someone on the left says "oh yeah what about welfare to corporations" I always agree with them, because if you just look at the raw numbers they get more.

I do think it could be handled better if handled outside the government. That said, I also recognize that we need to take the money for this currently used by the goverment and not send it to the government in order to make it work. Simply cutting SNAP doesn't help anyone unless you also cut the taxes used to pay for SNAP. Only if both halves of the equation are cut does the equation balance.

 

[Half-Life]

First most of those who created most of the jobs were not billionaires when they created/filled the niche for demand. Their wealth came as the result of a lot of hard work by those who actually did the work creating whatever brought in money disproportionately to those who became billionaires.

I'm pretty sure that the guy who developed DOS was pleased that two operators bought his product and used it to get a contract with IBM for their PC built as a response to two other guys who actually developed a computer in a garage then stole XEROX's interface toolkit to gain an edge.

I've got a million of them. Kinive, fleece deceive, steal .... get rich.

So Up yours very much.

People agreeing to buyouts happens, but it's their fault and their choice. You are right that I could have a very smart idea and someone offers me 500K to buy it and I say yes. They now use it and make billions. I can only get mad at myself. I was the fool who was too scared and figured 500K was good enough for me because I didn't believe in the idea very much.

But, Bill Gates is a billionaire and he pays people under him millions of dollars. The pay range that he pays to people is from minimum wage to millions. You guys act like these billionaires are ONLY paying minimum wage to everyone. While it's true some get minimum wage, there are also workers of his tht get paid millions and others hundreds of thousands a year. Same is true for all big companies.

There is no possible way they would ever pay the guy who stocks shelves millions of dollars a year.

 

[jonatha]

It was pointed out to me that Unemployment was something I already paid for.

I have heard this too and I don't buy it.

Unemployment insurance premiums are paid by the employer not the employee.

I believe the argument is that if the employer weren't paying it the money would be available to be paid as wages and since the expense is tied to employment market forces would eventually force it to be paid as wages.

I've been both an employer and am employee and IMHO the employee might see some of the money but certainly not all of it.

 

[fromderinside]

Most of 'these' millionaires don't run their companies, don't set wages, don't set benefits, don't do anything useful. Those that are hands on with their companies have become spokesmen or symbols for the companies they started. Billionaires are flotsam bringing in big bucks by floating on privilege and wildly out of whack laws.

For instance the symbol of Boeing, it's recently fired billionaire CEO failed to follow proper policy and now Boeing may go down the tube because he did a Nero and lost the trust of both his customers and his customers customers. In fact the main thing billionaires do is attract negative publicity negating the very work tat got them into billionaire alley. Uber, Facebook, flash in to view. The latest rich people from Goggle are out the door because they became toxic to the company.

No. Most billionaires benefit from systems generally they're not leaders and builders of systems. Mostly they got to be billionaires because they saw an opening and found something others developed to take advantage of it the rode it until they became out of touch and were dropped. Almost none of them had plans for a corporation, maybe not even plan for a product or gimmick. Then the surrounded themselves with very competent people.

There are thousandaires who actually built companies. My brother-in-law is one who developed a security company by seeing a need for such service, who developed a plan to select, provide, train, and monitor that company for customers. He actually worked hard to put it together and keep it running. Then when got to retirement age he sold that company.

It fell apart. The buyers had no idea that the company doesn't run itself. So he went out and rescued his old customers with a new company just because he wanted to leave a legacy and serve his customers. He's barely a millionaire. Yet that's what you seem to think are the billionaires. They aren't. They are lucky or users or opportunists. Musk comes as close to what you conceive and he had to buy battery technology to giterdone. he's a heck of an engineer and salesman. His extreme method for getting reusable boosters is testimony to that. Still his bad judgement almost lost him his company.

 

[southernhybrid]

Unless you are disabled or mentally ill, welfare should be abolished. Have too many kids because you were recklessly having sex? Too bad. This would teach people they can't be reckless and suck on the government teet. People would think twice instead of saying, "I can have all these kids and get more free money from the government!"

Every parent with a child knows how this works. Is your child more likely to get a job if you give them free money every week? Or less likely?

I probably shouldn't feed your nonsensical post any attention, but perhaps someone else here, who is more reasonable, needs to know the truth.

I've never met a person who had children so they could get more government benefits. I've worked with some wonderful women who made the minimum wage or about 50 cents more than the minimum wage. Some of them did have more children than I would have had, but what I learned is that in many, if not in most cases, these women adored their children. Sometimes when you're poor and don't have many opportunities, family is the only thing that gives you purpose and joy in life.

If you think women shouldn't have so many children, then you should be an advocate for better access to good family planning provided by public health or Planned Parenthood. Certainly a person who thinks women are having too many children should support affordable education for women, because statically those are the only things that enable women to have to have goals other than having large families. Then again, considering that the birth rate in the US is declining rapidly, where are all these women who are having too many children?

And, as others have mentioned, why should innocent children who never asked to be born, be punished by their mother's decision to give them birth? What difference does it make if their birth was due to carelessness, or poor access to family planning methods?

And, I'm sure you know how your opinions look. You obviously love the drama that you instill in these discussions, which is why many of us are doubtful that you are sincere in what you post here. Maybe we just don't want to believe that people have views as ignorant and mean as the things you post.

But, if you are for real, why is it that anti abortion folks almost always seem to care more about a fertilized egg or fetus than they do about the child who has been born and needs help? Why do so many conservatives and evangelicals scream about Roe v Wade but are disgusted by poor families who have children? Why is it okay to put children in cages when their parents bring them to our borders? Oh I get it! To them, the fetus is so precious, but once the child is born, it's just fine to let that child live in poverty and suffer the consequences of being raised in a society that judges the poor harshly, and that denies that poor child the means to survive and get ahead.

So, if anyone besides Half judges poor women harshly if they have children, please be sure to make a donation to Planned Parenthood ASAP!

 

[Kusa]

The EIC is a very popular program and it's only given to people who work. I think I once qualified for this when I was a single mother working as a public health nurse. That was in 1980 and my EIC was only a few hundred dollars for the year. Obviously, this program isn't just for the poorest. If home owners get to deduct their real estate taxes and mortgage interest on their tax returns, I think helping those who may not be able to afford to buy a home is a great idea. Since it's given just once, it often helps people pay down debt, buy clothing for their children, or replace a dying appliance etc. I can't imagine why anyone would be against this program, especially when you consider all the tax breaks and right offs that more affluent people can benefit from.

If I take a tax deduction then it just means I pay less taxes. I still pay a lot in taxes though.

EIC goes beyond being a tax deduction. It actually takes the taxes that I pay and gives the money to someone that didn’t pay any taxes at all.

So it’s not really a tax credit. It’s forcing money out of my bank account and handing it over to someone else.

Also, there is no control over what the EIC recipient does with the money. They could just buy a PlayStation and weed with it.

 

[Rhea]

There is a false story about how billionaires are "job creators" and it is the rich who are selling that story.


In reality, the most jobs are from small business owners, and they pay better wages and share the actual contributions of their employees more fairly without using bully tactics to exploit a human's real need to decide that starving slowly is better than starving quickly.

Small business owners are harmed by the billionaire's welfare, which is accomplished by the uneven power the money exerts.

In short, the billionaires and the hundred-millionaires are a net negative on the job market and on society. But they really really want you to believe that no one makes jobs better than they do! Except the data does not support that claim.

Some people will keep repeating it, even in nasty, brutish, insulting terms that seem designed to stir up disruption and backlash to hide the bankruptcy of their ideas. Loudly declaring stereotypes to swerve the argument away from their untruthful claim and instead onto their inflammatory language so that no one ever really sees how untruthful their initial claim is.

So when you hear someone screeching about "lazy" people and "reckless sex" and "fool" and all of those derogatory terms, they are trying to change the topic and attempt to leave the false idea that billionaires are good people lying unrefuted on the table by distracting you with their nastiness.

 

[laughing dog]

It was pointed out to me that Unemployment was something I already paid for.

I have heard this too and I don't buy it.

Unemployment insurance premiums are paid by the employer not the employee.

I believe the argument is that if the employer weren't paying it the money would be available to be paid as wages and since the expense is tied to employment market forces would eventually force it to be paid as wages.

I've been both an employer and am employee and IMHO the employee might see some of the money but certainly not all of it.

Not only that, put it is doubtful that any particular unemployed person ends up paying in at least the amount (including "lost" wages) that they end up receiving - just like anyone receiving an insurance payment.